Actually, torpid's response was spot-on! You name a bunch of lame criteria and say that they prove nonexistence.
None of that is evidence. What does your analogy have to do with anything? You are stating that something is FALSE based on questions you have about how it might be true. Then you go on to say that people who say something is TRUE are idiots, when in fact the argument is that scientifically we cannot state with any validity whether the fact is true OR false.
I could come up with many similar questions about many scientific principals. What does dark matter taste like? Where does it reside? How much is there? How does it bend light?
I can certainly conceive of these things. The problem is that no evidence supports them. <insert questions I've asked twice already but which, oddly enough, haven't been answered>. No evidence in the history of mankind supports the existence of a deity. The difference between proving a deity does exist and that one doesn't exist is that the latter scenario is supported by mountains of evidence and is logical by the known laws of physics. Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?
That's my problem: I don't know what a deity is and no one's able to agree upon a testable definition, so the whole question about whether deities exist or not is meaningless.
No, I'm stating that it's false based on observation and logic. I'd also like very much for you to quote where I called anyone an idiot... I hope your god can deliver a miracle, because I haven't done it
Whose god what now? Are you under the impression that those of us who are arguing against the logical and scientific validity of your points believe in god? I think you may be surprised.
Please list out 10 observations and 5 logical points that REFUTE the existence of a god, and I will be happy. Note that "I don't know what he would eat" does not by any stretch of the imagination qualify, nor does "how big is his apartment".
Please list out 10 observations and 5 logical points that REFUTE the existence of a god, and I will be happy. Note that "I don't know what he would eat" does not by any stretch of the imagination qualify, nor does "how big is his apartment".
I absolutely am, and I doubt I would.
Why? I'm not the one making a claim unsupported by observation. If you're truly interested you can scope out the middle of the first page (if you have your options set to 100 posts per page) for an idea of my points as made before the thread devolved into the old "is too" "is not" "is too" "is not" bit.
Still waiting on that quote of me calling anyone an idiot btw
Originally posted by: Gurck
I absolutely am, and I doubt I would.
Why? I'm not the one making a claim unsupported by observation. If you're truly interested you can scope out the middle of the first page (if you have your options set to 100 posts per page) for an idea of my points as made before the thread devolved into the old "is too" "is not" "is too" "is not" bit.
Still waiting on that quote of me calling anyone an idiot btw
Well I read through all your posts on this thread and saw only lame questions similar to "what color its his poo?" And in case you haven't been able to tell so far, the "idiot" as well as the "poo" quote above were just me rephrasing your point in a different way. "grasping at straws" to me may as well be calling someone an idiot. And asking what god eats isn't really all that different from asking what color his or her poo would be.
As for your assertion that you are not making a claim unsupported by observation - you certainly are. Unless you are using observation in the non-scientific sense. In which case your "observations" are not all that different than the "observations" of joan of arc.
The point ultimately is that you are just as closed-minded as your "opposition". The truth about god is without question unknowable by scientific means at this time. Any logical proof or disproof of the existence of god has been refuted hundreds if not thousands of times by now.
There are many miraculous or fantastic things that we would gladly assert as impossible but which brilliant minds are slowly discovering to be possible. Until recently, for example, it would not seem ridiculous to claim that atomic teleportation is impossible and would never exist. In fact probably you are still thinking that it is impossible and would state it as scientific fact that it is impossible.
Nothing similar to that. I asked questions which make sense and whose answers would help the knowledge base on the subject. Short on logical arguments, you resort to childish mudslinging with this comment. Not surprising.
Grasping at straws is indicative of desperation. Being an idiot is.. .well, indicative of stupidity. Apples and oranges. Try again.
"is too" "is not" "is too" "is not" ... :roll: The world around me works due to the laws of physics and logic. These are observable and make sense. A deity is not and does not. The only claim being made, which therefore needs to be proven, is existence of a deity.
Try common sense then
If you reply by yet again paraphrasing your dogma I'm not going to bother. If you manage to add something I might. Good day.
"I'm 15 feet tall, and it's up to you to prove I'm not."
It's just silly to make preposterous claims and then have the gall to assert that you're right until proven wrong.
What exactly is my dogma?
Common sense tells me only that there is no god acting upon my life, not that there is no god. Actually, many if not most christians would agree with this assertion. Based on the free will stuff, however that works. Noninterference, whatever it's called.
Common sense also tells me that while total omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresence is not possible, it is certainly possible that something that appears to be those things is. By that I mean, a being whose technology is so advanced as to appear to be those things is not out of the question. It's not hard for me to imagine, for example, that a being could know the precise coordinates of every human on the planet, what we are thinking, and what we are about to do. It's also not hard for me to imagine that objects could be transported. These would all simply be more advanced realizations of scientific properties / techniques we already know.
Here's an analogy for you. Suppose your friend tells you that in the game of chess, black has a winning position before move 1. His evidence is weak, if not entirely non existent. The logical conclusion at this time is to say that it is not certain whether black (or white) has a winning position before move 1 or not, as we do not have sufficient evidence. The game of chess has not yet been "solved".
On the other hand, it also is not valid to say that white has a winning position before the first move. While common sense does tell us this, and in fact modern theory suggests that white has an advantage, it is not valid to say that white has a winning position. At best we can assert that white has an advantage, but we do not know for sure whether this advantage will always lead to victory if played properly.
Common sense tells me only that there is no god acting upon my life, not that there is no god. Actually, many if not most christians would agree with this assertion. Based on the free will stuff, however that works. Noninterference, whatever it's called.
Common sense also tells me that while total omniscience/omnipotence/omnipresence is not possible, it is certainly possible that something that appears to be those things is. By that I mean, a being whose technology is so advanced as to appear to be those things is not out of the question. It's not hard for me to imagine, for example, that a being could know the precise coordinates of every human on the planet, what we are thinking, and what we are about to do. It's also not hard for me to imagine that objects could be transported. These would all simply be more advanced realizations of scientific properties / techniques we already know.
Here's an analogy for you. Suppose your friend tells you that in the game of chess, black has a winning position before move 1. His evidence is weak, if not entirely non existent. The logical conclusion at this time is to say that it is not certain whether black (or white) has a winning position before move 1 or not, as we do not have sufficient evidence. The game of chess has not yet been "solved".
On the other hand, it also is not valid to say that white has a winning position before the first move. While common sense does tell us this, and in fact modern theory suggests that white has an advantage, it is not valid to say that white has a winning position. At best we can assert that white has an advantage, but we do not know for sure whether this advantage will always lead to victory if played properly.
We're both guilty of it; our last ~10 posts each have been the same exact thing back & forth. It felt good to vent though. Needless to say those are my beliefs and they're not changing, but I'm generally not nearly so adamant about it. I'm usually against this sort of post being in OT, but when I did a poll quite a few people said OT is the place for it. Regardless, I'm not going back & forth anymore, and probably wouldn't have in the first place if I'd gotten enough sleep last night (any sleep, truth be told). No hard feelings.
Not true for me. I grew up atheist/agnostic. I still don't like going to church. I still dislike most of organized religion... but now I am a Christian.
While what you say is true for most people, it isn't for all. Some people, such as myself, came to faith without being forced or brainwashed into it.
If it were possible to logically prove the existence of God, it would have been done a long time ago.
Likewise, if it were possible to logically prove the non-existence of God, it would have been done a long time ago.
There's a reason it's called 'faith'. You are very unlikely to get anywhere with logic.
Most of the backlash against believing in God is due to the corruption and crimes of organized religion. Organized religion has done to faith and God what the two party system and human corruption have done to the ideals of the U.S. gov't founded by the people of the American Revolution.
Organized religion is a great TURN OFF to people that don't believe.
If you are at all curious (or would like more fuel for your flame wars), take the time to actually read the source - The Bible. To people that have read The Bible, such as myself, the staggering amount of ignorance spouted in threads like this is alarming.
Likewise, if it were possible to logically prove the non-existence of God, it would have been done a long time ago.
There's a reason it's called 'faith'. You are very unlikely to get anywhere with logic.
Most of the backlash against believing in God is due to the corruption and crimes of organized religion. Organized religion has done to faith and God what the two party system and human corruption have done to the ideals of the U.S. gov't founded by the people of the American Revolution.
Organized religion is a great TURN OFF to people that don't believe.
If you are at all curious (or would like more fuel for your flame wars), take the time to actually read the source - The Bible. To people that have read The Bible, such as myself, the staggering amount of ignorance spouted in threads like this is alarming.
The problem with your statement is that it's not true. You can prove non-existence in logic, such as the non-existence of an algorithm that would solve the Halting Problem, and as for science, well, science doesn't prove anything. The only capability science offers is that of disproving theories.
Your argument is so ridiculous.... Because you think organized religion has problems does not dispute theism itself... Even evolution does not by itself contradict religion. I'm sure I don't need to waste my time going over some of religous explanations of evolution. Furthermore to make the statement that religion is against science and experimentation is to be prejudiced to the point of bigotry. Much of science has in fact been inspired, and been supported by religion. Einstein himself was a jew who believed in god. Because you havent found religion of use to you, gives you no place to go around harassing and demanding people abandon their beliefs. I have not on this forum at any point attempted to convince you that there is or is not god. If I have... please show me a quote... all I have argued is that being athiest doesnt mean you are more enlightened, or more in tune to logic and reason. It simply means that you have different beliefs than christians or muslims, or whomever. But thats all they are... beliefs... We don't have to prove god's existence for US to believe in god... anymore than you have to prove god doesnt exist for you to not believe in god.
As for your "logic" as to why religion exists... this is bunk. There's no way that pointing out a possible reason for religions existance proves that that is in fact THE reason religion exists. You know for someone so grounded in logic... you suck at logic.
Here's where you're an idiot... yes I called you an idiot... take it as you will.
We are arguing for the right to believe in god, while you are arguing against the right to believe in god. We are not asserting that you cannot believe in no-god. We are simply saying people can believe in god, and you cannot come up with any logical argument to prove them wrong.
-Max
My boss was preaching his religious crap at me today, and was going on about how wine in the Bible was non-alcoholic (basically just grape juice) and much like the people in P&N, he refused to listen to or believe evidence to the contrary. I was about a breath away from telling him to "Shut the fsck up!" and I think he realized it, because he shut up and made sure to stay out of arm's reach for quite some time afterwards. I think he thought I was going to kick his arse.
Wine was non-alcoholic? Where did he get that idea?? It makes references in the Bible to cleansing the stomach with some good wine and not being a drunken fool.
I know that, and you know that, but he is convinced that they were referring to grape juice. He claims he did his own "study" (see also: found someone as stupid as he is that shared similar views and copied them) that claims they made specially treated grape juice that had all the benefits of wine, yet had no alcohol.
lol, that's funny. Especially considering that nowhere in the Bible does it say not to drink, Christians who are against all alcohol are following strictly a cultural belief.
It does warn against drunkenness though. Nothing that we don't know already, of course: You do dumb things when you're drunk. If you don't want to do dumb things, don't get drunk.
Some people do stupid things when drunk. I wouldn't say people who do are stupid necessarily, but I doubt many Mensa members would do stupid things when drunk. Also may point to deeper issues, as the reason it has this reputation is simply that it lowers inhibitions.
Nor did I claim it does. My argument has been that proof of nonexistence isn't necessary, as it's what we observe every day. Apples and oranges. You might want to try reading before posting.
It does indeed contradict the christian & catholic religions, where are you getting this stuff?
Wow, a specific example. Your argument is bulletproof. :roll: I was in a bad car accident a few years back and didn't get a scratch on me. Are all bad car accidents safe? When all you have are anecdotes, it's often better to say nothing.
To say that the church hasn't battled science and advancement is mind-boggling. It's a bit off-topic though, as the issue at hand isn't organized religion (which I think we'd both agree has its fair share of problems) but the need or lack thereof to prove the nonexistence of a deity or deities.
Oh boy, namecalling :roll:
Actually you are. You're saying that I can't believe in the nonexistence of a deity or deities (my belief) without proof, while those who do believe have, of course, no proof. How hypocritical... and completely unsurprising
For someone brought up religious, apparently "God" is in everything they see and do, and his nonexistence is the whacky theory which must be proven. Since it won't get anywhere, I'll agree to disagree. My stance remains that nonexistence needs no proof, as it's what we observe in everyday life, while existence, to attain a degree of legitimacy, must be proven.
Lastly, only children and people with low IQs namecall. Not reading before responding is quite a good indicator as well.
Maybe you and I are reading two completely different threads... perhaps we are even from different planets... but when did Catholic/Christian = all religions? And furthermore, last I checked evolution is still a theory(one I believe in) and not a fact.
Whoa dude... back up... you're the one making blanket statements about religion contradicting science. My one specific example is sufficient to prove at LEAST an exception, thereby debunking your blanket logic.
Reread the thread my silly friend... this discussion is about percieving one's own religion as the only correct one, and seeing everyone else as wrong. I made the argument that Atheists are just as guilty of this.
You turned it into a atheist prostyletizing session.
Interesting that you use your own broken logic to declare my beliefs "illegitimate". While neither I, nor anyone else in this thread called yours "illegitimate". This is typical of fanatics... the unwillingness to allow for others to have their own opinions without ridicule.
Well if I am either a child, or a person with a low IQ, and yet still managed to hand your ass to you in this argument.... then what does that make you?
-Max
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter